Urartian Bronzes in Etruscan Tombs

Urartian Bronzes in Etruscan Tombs
Author(s): K. R. Maxwell-Hyslop
Source: Iraq, Vol. 18, No. 2 (Autumn, 1956), pp.
Published by: British Institute for the Study of Iraq
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4199609

Accessed: 30/12/2010 04:08

150-167

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.j stor.org/action/sho wPublisher?publisherCode=bisi.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

British Institute for the Study of Iraq is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Iraq.

STOR

®
http ://www.j stor.org

150
URARTIAN BRONZES IN ETRUSCAN TOMBS

Bj K. R. MAXWELL-HYSLOP

Objects showing strong oriental influence in the large Etruscan tombs have
been studied by many distinguished scholars writing over a long period
of years and from many different standpoints — by Karo as a classical archaeologist
and Lehmann-Haupt as an authority on Armenia, followed by Randall Maclver,
Poulsen, Kunze, Schachermeyr, Herzfeld, Pareti, Curtis and Hanfmann. Nor
must the pioneer work of Herzfeld on Urartu and Etruria be forgotten 1 .
Among the many Italian scholars working in the wider field of Etruscan studies
we are especially indebted to the work of Giglioli, Minto and Pallotino. But
certain basic problems still remain to be solved and in the light of the recent
invaluable studies by Barnett on Urartian metalwork we can hope that an
approach from a purely oriental angle may be able to make a new contribution
to answering these questions, and may possibly supplement the suggestions
concerning the chronology of these tombs recently published by Professor
Hawkes 2 .

A study of the bronze, silver and ivory objects of probably oriental origin
should help us to answer the following questions :

(i) Were they made in Italy or in Asia and imported into Italy?

(2) For what purpose were they made ?

(3) If they were imported into Italy, by w T hat route did they arrive?

(4) If they were imported, can one distinguish local copies ?

(5) When were they made and by whom?

In this paper certain suggestions will be put forward concerning some of

[I would like to express my thanks to all those who Poulsen, Die Orient und Fruhgriechische Kunst. 191 2.

have helped me in writing this study, and especially Kunze, Die Kretische Bronze reliefs. 1931.

to Mr. R. D. Barnett, Keeper of the Department of Kunze, Verkannter orientalischer Kesselschmuck aus dem

Western Asiatic Antiquities in the British Museum, Argivischen Heraion. Reinecke Festschrift. 1950.

and Professor Luisa Banti of the University of Herzfeld, Khattische und Khaldische Bron^en. Janus I

Florence ; also to Professor Sidney Smith and Professor (Lehmann-Haupt Festschrift). 1921.

M. E. L. Mallowan, to Mr. Ward Perkins, Director of Pareti, La tomba Rego/ini Galassi. 1947.

the British School at Rome, to Professor Bartoccini, Curtis, The Bernardini tomb. Memories of the American

Director of the Villa Giulia Museum, to my colleagues Academy in Rome. Vol. III.

at the Institute of Archaeology, and to the University Curtis. The Barberini tomb. Memories of the American

of London authorities who enabled me to visit Italy Academy in Rome. Vol. V.

with a grant from the Central Research Fund.] Hanfmann, Altetruskische P/astik.

1 It is unnecessary to give here a comprehensive Pallottino, Gli scavi di Karmir-blur in Armenia in

bibliography and only important studies which are Archaeologica Classica VII, 2, 1955. Unfortunately

particularly relevant to this article will be noted. thls onl y cached England as my article was going

G. Karo, Orient und Hellas in archaischer Zeit (Athen- to P ress *

ische Mitteilungen, XLV, 1920). 2 C. F. C. Hawkes, From Bronze Age to Iron Age:

Lehmann-Haupt, Armenien EJnst und Jettf, 2 Vols., Middle Europe, Italy and the Northwest and West in

1910, 1926, 1931. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 1948, 196; also in

Randall Maclver, Villanovans and Early Etruscans. Atti del Primo Congresso di Preistoria e Protostoria

1924. Mediterranean Florence. 1950, 262.

151 K. R. MAXWELL-HYSLOP

the bronzes, leaving the ivories and silver work to be studied in future articles.
Professor Sidney Smith in his important study written in 1942 suggested an
answer to the third question and put this problem in its historical setting 1 .
He stressed the importance of the trade route Van-Carchemish-Al Mina on
the Syrian coast-Rhodes-Corinth-Italy and pointed out that there is no sign
of Phoenician influence on certain types of bronzes such as the bronze handle
attachments for buckets or cauldrons (made in the form of birds with human busts
and heads) whose distribution ranges from Urartu in Armenia to Vetulonia and
Praeneste in Italy, with examples from Rhodes, Delphi and Olympia. It is
generally accepted that the examples of this type found in Asia are Urartian,
and that most of the Aegean examples are copies by Greek workmen of the
Vannic originals, but what of the Etrurian examples ? And are there other
objects in the Etruscan tombs which can be linked up with Urartu or other
parts of Western Asia and could provide more evidence for the existence of
the N. Syrian trade mentioned above or even suggest other means of contact ?
PL XXVI, 4, shows the bronze siren figure from one of the Vetulonia cauldrons
now in the Florence Museum which can be compared with advantage to the
Vannic examples. PL XXVI, 1, 2, is a double-headed sirenfigure from Vannow
in the collection of the Marquis de Vogue to whom I am grateful for permission
to publish the photograph here 2 . Kunze, who in 193 1 listed all the then
known examples of these figures from Asia and the Aegean, gives eight
examples from Van, and PL XXVI, 3, is another, which, although found in Greece
must have been imported from Van 3 , and is closely comparable to the Vetulonian
siren. All these examples have the same engraved triangular pattern across
the base of the neck which seems to be a peculiarly Urartian feature. Another
pair similar to the Vetulonia siren figures which also has the same triangular
decoration is found on the bronze cauldron in the Bernardini tomb 4 . All
these examples from Italy fit closely over the flat edges of the cauldron and
must have been made to fit the particular vessel to which they are attached.
It is most unlikely that they were imported separately, as has been suggested.
In fact both the Vetulonia and Bernardini female sirens cannot be closely
compared to the Greek series and must be regarded as the products of an
Urartian bronze worker. The bearded male siren figure on the second Vetulonia
cauldron (PL XXXIII, 4, 5) is also executed in an Urartian style; he can be
compared to a bronze Urartian figure, and his curious curved helmet, a type

1 The Greek trade at Al Mina, in A.]., XXII (1942), where the original account of the discovery of a

g 7> cauldron ornamented with this siren figure is given.

2 1 am also indebted to Mr. Barnett who gave me See also Kunze, op. cit. t 1950, 100, for additions to his

the photographs published in PI. XXVI, 1, 2, and to list.

Professor Band for PL XXVI, 3 4. 4 Curtis, op. cit. t HI, pi. 54,1. See also Perrot and

3 See Bossert, Altanatolien, no. 1167, 1168. Here Chipiez, History of Art in Assyria, 172, fig. 91, from

the provenance is given as Van, but see Bulletin de Van with triangular decoration.
Correspondance Hellenique, 12, 1888, pi. 12, and 380,

PLATE XXVI

t, 2. Winged figure with two heads, which originally ornamented a cauldron. Bronze. 37 cm. across
wings. From Van. Collection of the Marquis de Vogue. (Paris.)
3. Head of a winged figure. Bronze. Height 7 cms. From Greece. Ptoion.
4. Head of a winged figure attached to a cauldron. Bronze. From Vetulonia. Florence, Archaeological Museum.

URARTIAN BRONZES IN ETRUSCAN TOMBS

152

Fig. 1.

sometimes worn by Assyrian soldiers, is found on the reliefs from T. Halaf
in North Syria 1 .

Now let us consider the cauldron with the lion and griffin heads on its stand
from the Barberini tomb (Plates XXVII-XXIX) at Praeneste 2 . Similar stands
made of hammered sheets of bronze are also found in the Regolini Galassi and
Bernardini tombs and these enormous objects, standing about 3-4 feet high,
are known in Etruria in terracotta. Apart from other evidence the large
number of terracotta stands suggest that local potters were imitating a rare
metal prototype and that it was not possible to produce bronze examples in

any quantity — presumably not through lack of
the raw material but through a lack of competent
craftsmen. The Urartian origin of the Barberini
bronze cauldron stand and the separate cauldron
which it supports was first suggested by Herzfeld
and there is much evidence to support his view.
The Assyrian relief from Khorsabad (Fig. 1) showing
Sargon's soldiers bearing away similar stands with
cauldrons from the temple of Musasir which was sacked in 714 B.C. and the
references to the quantities of large bronze vessels which occur in the

description of Sargon's colossal
booty from the temple are well
known 3 . Fig. 2 shows another
representation of a cauldron and
stand from Khorsabad in use in a
ritual scene. It is also shown on
the reliefs from Karatepe in S.E.
Turkey 4 . Certainly this type of large
stand supporting a cauldron is at
home in Western Asia; we find it
on the Balawat gates showing the
booty from Carchemish captured by
Shalmaneser III in 858 b.c. (Fig. 5)
and it was known in Palestine as
late as Sennacherib's reign (705-681
B.C.). This is a rather different type
from the Khorsabad examples ; it has

probably all belong to the same tomb, there may
have been objects which are now dispersed. No
pottery has been preserved, and it is unfortunate that
some of the bronzes have been restored in such a
way that it is difficult now to recognise the modern
additions.

3 F. Thureau-Dangin, Une relation de la buitieme
campagne de Sargon.

4 Bossert, (Jambel, etc., Karatepe Ka%ilarl y Ankara,
1950, pi. XII.

1 Iraq, XII, Pt. i (1950), PI. XVIII, 2. See Tell
Halaf, III Taf. 17 for the helmet; also a statuette in
the Perugia Museum. Calzoni, II Museo preistorico
dell' Italia Centrale, 57. A male siren is also known
from Olympia, Fiirtwangler, Olympia, IV, pi. XL1V,
783, and is probably also of Urartian workmanship.

2 The Barberini tomb was discovered in 1855 and
we know very little about the actual excavation or
the circumstances of its finding. But the early
accounts of this collection of objects suggest that
while the objects now in the Villa Giulia Museum

(5801)

*53

K. R. MAXWELL-HYSLOP

a tall moulded base and is portrayed on the relief showing Assyrian soldiers
carrying away spoil from Lachish (Fig. 4).

Other reliefs of Sennacherib's reign
showing the booty captured in his
campaigns in Babylonia portray caul-
drons and stands like the Khorsabad
examples (Fig. 5) and also separate
large cauldrons presumably intended to
stand on a separate base or tripod.
An actual Urartian example of this type
of cauldron (with bulls' heads and
tripod stand) has been found at Altin
Tepe near Ersincan 1 and the discovery
provides important additional evidence
for the view that the cauldrons with
lion and griffin heads attached, found
in Etruria in the Barberini tomb, in the
Bernardini tomb and at Vetulonia, must
all be of Urartian manufacture. These
examples of cauldrons are all enormous
with diameters of 0.72 m (Altin Tepe), 0.65 m and 0.55 m (Vetulonia), 0.68
m (Barberini) and about 0.67 m (Bernardini). In this latter tomb a smaller
cauldron and tripod stand, with bulls' feet of Urartian type
and comparable to the Altin Tepe example, was also found 2 .
But to return to the Barberini cauldron and its stand. If we
can regard the type as Urartian in origin, why was it exported
to Italy and at what period? It is important to remember
that metal cauldron stands such as the Barberini example are
unknown in Italy at any earlier period. Leaving aside the
numerous terracotta copies, the only comparable type in
Italy are the much earlier large ritual terracotta cauldrons
and stands from Cozzo del Pantano and Pantalica in Sicily,
which may be copying unknown metal prototypes. But the Barberini cauldron
and stand must have had some important ritual use and in this connection both
the decoration of the base and the animals on the cauldron must be considered.
The base, which is hollow, is decorated with a winged monster whose face
has been compared by Barnett to that of the king on the Urpalla relief at

Fig- 3-

Fig. 4.

Fig- 5-

1 Barnett and Gokce, The find of Urartian bronzes at
Altintepe near Er^incan in A.S., III, 53 ff. See also
Pallottino, op. cit. Tav. XLIX, 2, for a similar cauldron
with bulls' heads from Cumae now in Copenhagen.

2 For Vetulonia see Notice Scavi 1913, figs. 7 & 8,
431 f and fig. 14. For the Bernardini cauldron see
Curtis, op. cit., Ill, pi. 52, and pi. 49 for the smaller
cauldron and tripod. Von Vacano, Die Etrusker,
195 5, pi. 89, shows this after cleaning.

PLATE XXVII

i. Cauldron ornamented with two griffins and two lion
heads and stand. Bronze. Stand, total height 86 cm.
diameter of base 60-2 cm. Cauldron, height, 44 cm.
Inside diameter of rim 50 cm. From Praeneste,
Barberini tomb, Rome. Villa Giulia Museum. Photo
Alinari.

2. Detail of griffin protome. Height from lowest
point of base to top of head 27 cm.

PLATE XXVIII

Detail of cauldron base. Bronze. From Praeneste, Barberini tomb.

PLATE XXIX

^^^Pf^^^^^l ^^r^

jjK

f > 3R <- TH

v IF J

Detail of cauldron base. Bronze. From Praeneste, Barberini tomb.

PLATE XXX

6
3

to

N 3

CO

^ 13

W) 13

.a k
£ a

M 1

URARTIAN BRONZES IN ETRUSCAN TOMBS 1 54

Ivriz in the Taurus 1 (PL XXX, x). Now we know that king Urpalla, a prince
of Tabal, paid tribute to Tiglath-pileser in 738 B.C. and the treatment of the
faces of both the god and of the king on this relief, and the head of the
Barberini monster, is undoubtedly the same. The god's name can be read,
Tarhund, probably a Luvian weather god 2 .

But there are other important points about the Barberini monster, aptly
called a " lion sphinx " by Barnett, which must be discussed. First, the round
knob on the top of the horned headdress is a feature found frequently on
reliefs of the N. Syrian storm god Tesub ; it occurs at Til Barsib and on the
relief of Tesub found at Babylon and presumably carried there as booty, as
well as at Zinjirli and at Carchemish on a human-headed sphinx 3 . Among many
other examples a cylinder seal from Kirkuk 4 may be mentioned, on which a bull
man with this same knob on his headdress occurs with a two-headed griffin
monster with bird's beak. This is worth remembering when considering the
Barberini cauldron with the " lion sphinx " portrayed on the base and two pairs
of griffins and lions attached to the cauldron above. We have then two features
on the cauldron base which suggest a weather god — first the headdress with
knob and secondly the facial resemblance to the Luvian god Tarhund on the
Ivriz relief combined with the usual Asiatic horned headdress of a deity 5 .

Another typically Asiatic feature is the fact that while the hindquarters of
the figure are those of a lion it has the breast feathers and wings of a bird,
while the whole demands comparison with the winged bulls and lions of
ninth century Assyrian reliefs. The treatment of the hindquarters, with the
curious flame-shaped pattern discussed below and the exaggerated muscles
and bones is comparable to that found on Assyrian bull colossi and sculptured
lions from the ninth century onwards, whose prophylactic purpose is well
documented. Writing of the " sedu and lamassu ", erected each side of palace
doorways, Gadd has concluded that " in all of these figures there is an obvious
intention of combining the forces of all the predominant creatures so that
they might be the more powerful to resist those adversaries whom it was their
function to dispel from the places which they guarded " 6 . Presumably these

1 Barnett, Early Greek and Oriental Ivories, J.H.S., Spirits of Babylonia, II, 151, could well be applied to
1948, 10. the Barberini monster:

2 Gurney, The Hittites, 138, identifies the god " He has the horns of an ox; hair lies (from between
Tarhund with the Etruscan Tarhon " whose name the horns)

is the basis of the personal name Tarquinius ". As far as his shoulders

Tar-hu-na-zi occurs as the name of two princes of The face of a man ....

Malatya, see Sargon, Annals, lines 178-190. He has wings; his feet are advancing

Guterbock, in Belleten, VII, 307, 32, does not agree The body of a lion with four legs . . . . "

with the opinion held by some scholars that the Luvian Professor C. J. Gadd has kindly referred me to the

Santas-Tarhun are weather gods. restoration and retranslation of this passage by

3 Contenau, Manuel d'archaeologie orientate, III, figs. F. Kocher in Mitteilungen des Institute fur Orient-
705, 704; Akurgal, Spathetitischebildkunst, Taf. XlVb. forschung, Band I, 75, where it is shown that the

4 Contenau, Les Tablet tes de Kerkouk, 78, no. 128. passage refers to the god Serum. It is possible that

5 The description of a god given in an Assyrian the god Seris, who in the form of a bull attended the
text, see R. Campbell Thompson, Devils and Evil Hittite weather-god, may be related.

6 Gadd, Assyrian Sculptures, 14.

(5901) e 2

15 5 K. R. MAXWELL-HYSLOP

bronze monsters on the Barberini cauldron base were intended to exercise
their beneficent powers over any evil influences which might disturb the ritual
in which the vessels and stands were used. This suggests that the purpose
of these curious figures which display features originating in the Luvian and
Hurrian weather gods and the Assyrian " lamassu ", was purely apotropaic
and exemplifies magical beliefs which were centuries old in Mesopotamia and
Syria. The Babylonian boundary stones are relevant in this connection as
here we find a winged scorpion man with lion's feet, horned headdress, human
face and beard, all comparable to those of the Barberini monster, except that
he has a real scorpion's body and scorpion's tail 1 . Certainly the tail on the
Barberini figure which winds round the sacred tree is more like a scorpion's
than a lion's and it is conceivable that one of the feet is that of a scorpion.
The scorpion man is normally taken as a symbol of the god Ninurta whose
usual symbol is a twin lion-headed club and this association of lion and
scorpion is also found on the Barberini cauldron base.

The purpose of the griffins and lions on the Barberini cauldron must also
be purely apotropaic. Both the lions (one head is restored) and the two open
mouthed griffins are attached to the cauldron by rivets. Plate XXVII, 2, shows
the side view with the so-called Hittite spiral and the horse ears. Another
lock of hair extends down the back of the neck and terminates in a broad
arrow-shaped tassel. Curtis has described one of the griffins in detail and
states that it is made of hammered bronze plates, but as it is attached to the
cauldron it is impossible to tell whether it has a filling of some other material
as was clearly true of the griffins of the similar (but fragmentary) cauldron from
the Bernardini tomb. Here Curtis states that " the entire figure, consisting of
head, neck and base, was formed of a thin plate of metal beaten into shape
over a previously prepared mould, probably of wood, and was then filled
with a composition which appears to be a mixture of bituminous and an earthy
substance. Afterwards certain details were added by means of incised lines
of which the impressions remain on the bituminous filling in the places where
the bronze covering has been broken away " 2 . The actual filling is photo-
graphed in his pi. 53, 2. On the other hand Payne has convincingly shown
that the Perachora griffin was certainly cast and the soft core inserted afterwards 3 ,
and this fact suggests that the same technique could have been used both for
some of the Olympia griffins (previously thought to have been made of
hammered bronze sheets) where remains of the core were found, and for the
Barberini and Bernardini examples. Certainly the relationship between the

1 King, Babylonian Boundary stones, pi. XIX. proof that the griffin was hammered. Layard,

2 Curtis, op. cit., III, 66. Nineveh and Babylon, 199, shows one of the bronze

3 Payne, Perachora, pi. 38 and pp. 126, 127, note 5, bulls' heads from the Nimrud throne (now in the
where he quotes Plenderleith's opinion that the griffin British Museum) with the bitumen filling and marks
is cast, not hammered. The fact that the impression of the decoration. These are certainly cast, and the
of the decoration remains on the bitumen filling is not decorative details added by chasing afterwards.

URARTIAN BRONZES IN ETRUSCAN TOMBS 1 56

Olympia griffins (especially nos. 793, 794 and 796), the Perachora example
and the Barberini griffin is extremely close and one would suspect that they
all originated in the same workshop 1 . A griffin head from Athens (Acropolis)
now in the Ashmolean Museum (PL XXXII, 1) can be placed in this class and
the earlier series from Samos (see p. 163) also belong here. An interesting
difference is that while Olympia no. 796 has two tresses on each side like the
Perachora example, Olympia nos. 793 and 794 have only one like that from
the Barberini tomb. In Asia two distinct tresses on griffins are not common;
they occur on the ivory griffin and the bronze winged griffin from Toprak
Kaleh and at Ziweye (see below) but nowhere else to my knowledge 2 . This
is not the place, however, to discuss the numerous examples of bronze griffin
protomes found in Greece. Jantzen has collected all the known examples,
both published and unpublished, and little can be added to his comprehensive
study 3 . But while he believes that all these griffins were made in Greece
and that the Etrurian examples should be regarded as Greek exports, I would
suggest that there is considerable evidence which points to Urartu and that
part of N. Syria which formed part of the Urartian empire before it was
destroyed by Tiglath-pileser III in 742 B.C., as the home of the Barberini and
Bernardini griffins and some of the earlier Greek examples. One would then
regard the later Etrurian examples, such as the cast griffins from Tarquinia,
as copies made by competent local smiths in imitation of the earlier Vannic
originals. If this is correct the development in Etruria must have been similar
to that put forward by Payne, who suggests that griffin protomes of the
Perachora type in Greece are imported from Asia and that the later examples
are copies by Greek craftsmen.

Let us now consider the Urartian area of N. Syria where the site of T. Halaf
perhaps provides us with the origin of the bronze griffin protomes. Here
a large free-standing stone example was found standing on a low eight-leaved
acanthus capital comparable to the top of the Barberini base 4 . T. Halaf also
provides interesting points to compare with the Barberini base. The flame-
shaped pattern on the hindquarters of the winged monster has already been
discussed by Barnett in relation to the reliefs from Ankara and it is also found
on the Nimrud ivories on the hindquarters of a sphinx 5 . But at T. Halaf
practically every relief with animals, birds or composite monsters shows
this feature 6 (Pis. XXX, 2, XXXI, 2) and the bird griffin with scorpion's tail

1 Furtwangler, Olympia, IV. Taf. XLV. Amandry, evidence that the griffins here have two tresses.
Petit s objets de Delphes, in Bulletin de correspondence 3 Jantzen, Griechische Greifenkessel. 1955.
Hellenique, 1944-5, 71, classifies Olympia 794 in his 4 Moortgat, Tell Halaf , III, pis. 136, 137.

stage II and 796 in his stage III. I cannot agree with 5 Barnett in J.H.S., LXVIII, 1948, 10, and in Iraq,

this classification. He also states that no griffin II, Pt. 2, 1935, p. 191, Fig. 3.

protome has been actually found in Asia omitting the • See also the lions and bulls, Moortgat, op. cit. y

Susa example (see p. 162) and the stone griffin protome Taf. 105,106,43 b, 44-50. Gazelles, Taf. 51, 55, 65.

from Nimrud, Barnett in J.H.S., 1948, pi. XI d. Lion and bull fighting, Taf. 67. Lion and deer,

2 Iraq, XII, Pt. 1, Pis. XV, 2, and XVIII, Pt. 1. Taf. 69. Bird griffin with scorpion's tail, Taf. 90 a.
In the drawing in N. Sc. y 1908, 433, fig. 14, of the Winged griffin, Taf. 90 b. Bull men holding winged
Vetulonia cauldron before it was restored, there is disc, Taf. 104, and many other examples.

(5901)

E 3

1 57 K. R. MAXWELL-HYSLOP

(PI. XXXI, z) is also portrayed with ribbing along its back similar to that on
the back of the Barberini monster. The treatment of the face and beard on
T. Halaf human-headed animals is also closely similar to the bronze lion sphinx
on the Barberini base whose tail is comparable to the Halaf bird- griffin's with
scorpion's tail; while even the heavy mane-like comb of short feathers reaching
from the beak to the top of the wings which occurs in all the Halaf bird-griffins
(and see PI. XXXI, 2) is represented on the bronze Barberini griffin by the
lock of hair on the back of the neck 1 .

The best parallel to the stylised tree between the two monsters on the base of
the Barberini crater is the tree on the Halaf reliefs where the Ionic volutes are
at the base of the trunk and the treatment of the leaves the same (PI. XXXI, 1).
In fact it would seem possible that the metalsmith who made the Barberini
cauldron base had seen both the Ivriz relief and the Halaf sculptures and had
tried to work in metal scenes he had seen portrayed in stone. Reliefs from
other sites in this area such as Carchemish (PI. XXXII, 2) and Sak$e Gozu again
show griffins which may well have formed the prototypes for the Barberini
bronze protomes, with the same well marked ribbing round the open mouth
and the " Hittite " tress with curved knob on top of the head 2 . But any
consideration both of scorpion men and griffins must lead us to Middle
Assyrian cylinders of the thirteenth-eleventh centuries b.c. where composite
creatures such as winged griffins occur profusely. They are often portrayed
each side of the sacred tree and usually as friendly beneficent beings. Frankfort
has stressed the dependence of Assyrian seal cutters on Mitannian or one might
say Hurrian themes and the sealings from Nuzu demonstrate this fact
admirably 3 . Thus we are led back again to the N. Syrian-Hurrian states and
to the religious and magical beliefs of the inhabitants of Hurrian N. Syria,
although admittedly in a period earlier than T. Halaf and Carchemish. Another
cylinder seal, however, of later date, calls for attention when considering such
features of the Barberini base as the knobbed headdress, the pomegranate
pattern (discussed below) and the griffins. This is the remarkable cultic seal
of Muses-Ninurta now in Berlin and discussed recently by Unger along with
the Royal seal of Muses-Ninurta now in the British Museum 4 . Both seals
come from Sadikanni on the Habur in N. Syria; they are provincial Assyrian
work but extremely interesting as the Berlin example shows the three features
visible on the Barberini cauldron and base. The cultic seal shows a bull-man
with knobbed headdress guarded by a griffin-headed genius who wears a
pomegranate on a chain round his neck, while on the British Museum seal the

1 Moortgat, op. cit., Taf. 90 a. Curtis, op. cit., V, 3 Porada and Buchanan, Corpus of Ancient Near

pi. 29, shows part of the tress on the back of the Eastern Seals, I, pi. LXXXVI, 609 E, 608 E.

griffin's head. Frankfort, Cylinder seals, 186 f.

1 Akurgal, op. cit. y pi. XLIV and XIV a. Woolley 4 Unger, in B.A.S.O.R., 130, 15.
and Barnett, Carchemish, III, pi. B. 58.

PLATE XXXI

3

S.

3

PQ

m
X

H

a

o

PLATE XXXII

i. Head of a griffin. Bronze. From the Acropolis, Athens. Oxford, Ashmolean Museum.
(Photo : Ashmolean Museum.) 2. Relief from Carchemish.

URARTIAN BRONZES IN ETRUSCAN TOMBS 158

ritual is taking place in front of a clearly executed pomegranate tree. As Unger
has convincingly shown, these seals belonged to Muses-Ninurta, the
grandson of Samanuha-sar-ilani, a prince of Sadikanni mentioned by
Assur-nasir-pal II in the year 883 b.c. and can therefore be dated c. 850 B.C.
It is important to realise that we can find parallels in N. Syria and Mesopotamia
for so many of those fantastic creatures who occur in Etruria with every detail
faithfully reproduced. The cylinders show griffins, winged human figures
with bird heads and griffin demons with buckets engaged in the sacred tree ritual,
as well as curious panther-headed animals sometimes with flames coming out
of their mouths, or with protruding tongues. All these monsters can be
found in Etruria, and the bronze panther protome from a chariot now in the
Antiquarium at Munich 1 portrays faithfully the dragon-headed griffin known
both on Middle Assyrian cylinders and also on the Kassite boundary stones
where it appears as the eagle-headed sceptre associated with the god Ninurta.

Carchemish provides us with another interesting clue to the purpose of the
animals on the Barberini cauldrons. Barnett has pointed out that the
winged semi-human figure who is evidently concerned in an anointing ritual
with the king is holding a bucket with attachments in the form of the winged
sirens discussed above 2 . The head of this figure is lost but presumably
was an eagle-headed griffin demon similar to those known on Assyrian
sculptures and seals engaged in the sacred tree ritual.

The lion head, like the griffin, is stated by Curtis to be made of hammered
bronze but may, on the analogy of Perachora, be cast. It can most easily be
compared to the Vannic bronze lions published by Barnett, which were
certainly cast, to the colossal Assyrian lion in the British Museum dating from
Assur-nasir-paPs reign and to the stone lions from Golliidag where the
treatment of the whiskers is executed in stone in the style used by the Barberini
metal smith 3 . Curtis has pointed out that one of the original lion's heads was
originally in a fragmentary state with the face missing and was extensively
restored. Garucci's drawing in Archaeologia, XLI, presumably shows the
complete head before it was attached to the cauldron by the restorer 4 .

The use of lion's heads combined with griffins to decorate the cauldron raises
many questions. The most likely explanation is that the cauldron and base
were used in a ritual which must have taken place either in or outside the tomb
before the corpse was buried and the use of the lion in this context may be a
distant reflection of the Babylonian and Assyrian magical beliefs that certain
evil spirits and demons of sickness should be portrayed with a lion's head.
Again the association of the lion with the god Nergal, lord of the underworld,
who was the mister of fifteen evil demons may have been reflected in the

1 Muhlestein, Die Kunst der Etrusker, pis. 114, 115. sculptures, reign of AJJur-nafir-pal, pi. VI, Akurgal,

2 Carchemish, III, pi. A 21a and B 35c. op. cit., pi. XXXV.

3 Iraq, XII, Pt. 1, PI. XI, British Museum, Assyrian 4 Archaeo/ogia, XLI, pt. 1, 200.

(5901) E 4

*59

K. R. MAXWELL-HYSLOP

Barberini ritual. In this connection the treatment of the head of the demon
Pazuzu on the plaque from Nimrud 1 is worth noting. Here the demon is
portrayed with a lion's head and two curled tresses similar to those we have
noted on the Barberini and Perachora griffins. He has a scorpion's feet and
tail and is winged. The plaque can be dated as it was found smashed in the
palace of Assur-nasir-pal II which we know was partially destroyed towards
the end of the eighth century B.C. Other significant features of this plaque
include a tripod with large cauldron and the lion headed female demon Lamastu
holding snakes who invites comparison with the Etruscan demon Tuchulcha.
The latter is shown in a mural painting in the Tomba dell 'Oreo at Tarquinia 2 .
Also, on the Nimrud and on another Assyrian plaque in the Collection de
Clercq in the Louvre a line of priests with lion headdresses are taking part in
the ritual to exorcise the demons of sickness 3 . It may well be that the Barberini
cauldron and base were used in an Etruscan ritual whose details may not have
differed much, and which may indeed have been directly derived, from the
Assyrian 4 .

The question of the route used by the metalsmiths who brought Urartian
bronzes to Etruria calls for some discussion. In this there is little doubt of
the importance of Crete. The close relationship between the Barberini base
and the " Zeus " shield (or tympanum) from the Idaean cave in Crete has
already been noted by Kunze and Barnett 5 . But there are now further indica-
tions which point to an Urartian origin not only for the Barberini cauldron
base but also for the " Zeus " shield. The pomegranate design round the top
of the Barberini base is also found on the Cretan plaque as well as on the gold
disc from Toprak Kale and the gold plaque from Ziwiye in Persian Azerbaijan 6 .
Since Herzfeld first suggested that the Zeus tympanum should be regarded as
Urartian work, its Vannic and Iranian connections have become more evident
and its relationship not only to the Ziwiye treasure (discussed below) but to the
plaque from Surkh Dum in Luristan cannot be denied 7 . It can therefore be
regarded as an important link between Iran and the West, with Vannic smiths
acting as the natural intermediaries between Luristan, North Iran, and Etruria.
A fragment of a cauldron base from Olympia depicting two winged figures

1 I.L.N. , July 29th, 1950, 181, fig. 6. from Capodimontc, Bisenzio now in the Villa

2 Pallottino, The Etruscans (Pelican Books), 24. Giuiia museum may well have been used in a similar
For a detailed study of the representations of Charun ritual. Lehmann-Haupt, Armenien, II, 580, N. Sc,
see F. de Ruyt, Charun Demon Etrusque de la Mort, 1928, Tav. VIII. See also the bronze wheeled stands
Rome, 1954. from T. Halaf, Von Oppenheim (English edition),

3 Contenau, op. cit., I, 251, fig. 152. pi. LXI1I B, and from Van, Przeworski, Die Meiall-

4 Another point worth noting is the fact that at Industrie Anatoliens, Taf. XII, 3 a and b.
Vctulonia the griffin cauldrons were found resting 5 Kunzc, op. cit., 193 1, 236 f, and Taf. 49. Barnett
on a bronze wheeled table and inside the cauldron in Iraq, XII, Pt. 1, p. 39.

was found a bronze cinerary urn. A seal impression 6 Lehmann-Haupt, Armenien, II, 1, 265. Godard,

from Van shows a comparable wheeled object, Le tresor de Ziwiye, fig. 10.

obviously intended for ritual use and the Cypriote 7 Dussaud in Syria, 26, 1949, pi. X, fig. 7.
bior.ze wheeled stands and the well known example

URARTIAN BRONZES IN ETRUSCAN TOMBS l6o

similar to the Cretan tympanum must be another example of this important group
of Vannic bronze work showing Iranian influence and exported to the West 1 .
In this connection the remarkable Ziwiye treasure needs further consideration.
Here, on the gold pectoral the same pomegranate pattern can be found and also
features such as the griffin with Phoenician apron, which also occur in Etruria 2 .
Godard and Ghirshmann have made detailed studies of this treasure and dis-
cussed its relation to Assyrian and Scythian art and have also pointed out its
connections with T. Halaf to the West and Luristan to the South East. Its im-
portance for any study of the origins of Etruscan metallurgy, however, has not
yet received attention. Godard, after mentioning the pectoral from the Regolini
Galassi Tomb now in the Vatican Museum continues " A Ziwiye, bien entendu
il ne s'agit pas d'anciens contacts avec TEtrurie ". But can we be so definite
about this? As well as the pomegranate pattern border we find the curious
flame pattern on the hindquarters of the Ziwiye winged bull-man, the winged
bulls and the lions, carefully executed in the same technique as on the Barberini
base, the Halaf monsters, the Nimrud ivory plaque and the Ankara reliefs
discussed above 3 . The gold griffin protome (Godard, fig. 30) considered by
Godard to be a Scythian import, has the two curled tresses we have noted,
both on the Perachora griffin and also on the Urartian ivory and bronze
examples. This feature occurs again on the griffin heads of the Vetulonia
bronze cauldron, now in the Florence Museum, and would suggest an Urartian
rather than a Scythian origin for the Ziwiye griffin.

Since Herzfeld wrote stressing the important part played by Urartian
metallurgy in Western Asia and Lehmann-Haupt pointed out that its influence
reached as far as Etruria, we have a great deal more evidence to reinforce these
views. Recent studies, by Hanfmann, Barnett and Clark Hopkins, have made
significant contributions to the problem of both Urartian-Etrurian and also
Iranian-Etrurian connections 4 , the existence of which cannot be doubted.
The Barberini base and cauldron, the Bernardini cauldron stand and the bowl
with tripod stand, the Vetulonia cauldrons and the Olympia and Perachora
griffin protomes discussed above are Urartian products and must have been
imported into Greece and Etruria as objects which were essential for the
performance of the rituals which were observed by the priests of those areas.
They must have been executed by craftsmen who were familiar with the
religious and magical beliefs reflected in the rituals for which they were intended.
In Italy these bronzes stand out as undoubted imports; technically they are an

1 J.D.A.I., 52, 1937, 71, fig. 32, and pi. 20, 1. from the Idaean cave also show a stylised version of
See also D. Levi, Gleanings from Crete, in A.J.A., the flame pattern on their hindquarters.

XLIX, 324. 4 Hanfmann, Origin of Etruscan sculpture in Critica

2 See the silver chest in the Tomba del Duce, d y Arte t ic,$j. Barnett in Compte Rendu 1952, Rencontre
Maclver, op, cit. t pi. 22,4. Assyriologique Internationale, 10. Clark Hopkins,

3 The lion and the boar on the 'Hunters * shield Oriental Evidence for Early Etruscan chronology in Berytus,

XI, 2, 1955.

l6l K. R. MAXWELL-HYSLOP

innovation with no precedent among Villanovan work. A distinct difference,
however, can be discerned in the Regolini Galassi cauldrons with lions' heads,
one of which is illustrated here (PI. XXXIII, i). Here the workmanship is
inferior and the lions treated in a non-Asiatic fashion. It must be a copy, made
by a local smith, himself perhaps trained by an Asiatic craftsman 1 . It is not
necessary to mention other Etruscan bronzes obviously imitating or influenced
by oriental prototypes. But the well-known tripod from the Loeb collection is
important as it shows that even in the sixth century b.c. when Etruscan metal-
smiths were producing magnificent objects with relief decoration influenced
by Greek art, Vannic techniques were still used. The bull's feet and the leaves
on which the cauldron rests are also executed in an Urartian style similar
to the Barberini cauldron base 2 . The fact that these bronzes were used in
rituals reflecting the religious beliefs of the leaders of the Etrurian communities
established in Italy and that they were copied faithfully in terracotta suggests
that these beliefs continued and spread to other sections of the population.

The importance of cheek pieces and bits of Luristan type in Italy was
emphasised by Hanfmann and Clark Hopkins' paper has stressed the importance
of N. Syria as a link between Luristan and the West. But Luristan cannot have
remained unaffected by the important trade route from Susa which, as Barnett
has shown, led northwards via Luristan and Kirmanshah to Sakkiz in
Azerbaijan and on to Van, then continuing to Trebizond on the Black Sea.
If, as Barnett suggests, this route was the chief means of contact between Iran
and the West, then the Iranian elements discernible in early Villanovan and
Italic bronze work discussed by Hopkins are explained and the Black Sea
route to Etruria from Van must already have been in use in the eighth century
and possibly earlier. Its importance may well have increased after 742 B.C.
when the other important route from Van to the West via N. Syria, using
Al Mina as a port, discussed by Sidney Smith (see p. 151), may have become
unusable owing to the Assyrian destruction of Urartian political dominance in
N. Syria. Against this background the presence of the remarkable dagger in
the Bernardini tomb with the amber handle and gold binding, obviously closely
related to the Persian bronze daggers with bronze winged pommels from Azer-
baijan, Luristan, and Susa, can be understood (PI. XXXIV, 1-3). 3 Its European
carp's tongue blade has been discussed by Professor Hencken in an article on a
similar dagger from Caracupa 4 , and that Etruria should be the area where
Western and Eastern influence meet and a craftsman produce a weapon with
an Iranian shaped hilt and European shaped blade is not surprising. Another
important link between Susa and the West is the occurrence in a level, dated
by Jequier to the time of king Silhak-insus-inak (1165-1151 B.C.), of a

1 This was suggested to me by Professor Banti in 8 See also list in Iraq VIII, pi. i, p. 51.

1955. 4 Hencken, A two looped socketed axe of the 7th

2 Chase in A. J. A., 1908, pi. XII. century B.C. in P.P.S., 1952, 121.

PLATE XXXIII

i. Cauldron with five lion heads. Bronze. Diameter 47 cm. Depth 33 cm. From

Cerveteri, Regolini Galassi tomb. Rome, Vatican Museum.
2, 3. Fluted bowls. Bronze. Diameter 22 cm. From Cerveteri, Regolini Galassi tomb.
4, 5 . Winged figure attached to a cauldron. Bronze. Height from base of wing to top of
helmet 15 -4 cm. Vetulonia. Florence, Archaeological Museum.

PLATE XXXIV

1,2. Sword from Ardebil,
Persia. Bronze. British
Museum (length: 75*3 cm.)

3. Bronze dagger, with
amber handle surrounded
by a gold band. Length
37-5 cm. From Praeneste,
Bernardini tomb. Sheath,
silver, 4-4 cm. wide.
Rome, Pigorini Museum.

4. Bronze spouted vase
from Samos.

URARTIAN BR0N2ES IN ETRUSCAN TOMBS 1 62

bronze griffin protome similar to the Barberini example 1 . Unfortunately we
cannot use the stratification of the early Susa excavations as reliable dating
evidence. On the other hand, if the protome does not date from this period,
which immediately precedes the decline of Susa, the only other likely date
would be the period 700-640 B.C. which saw a brief period of Elamite revival,
ending in Ashurbanipal's sack of the city. How far Iranian influence could
travel in the late eighth and seventh centuries B.C. is shown by the fact that
the half and quarter rosettes, so admirably shown by Barnett to have originated
on textiles in Susa in Iran and traced by him via Azerbaijan-Urartu-Rhodes
and Corinth, occur in Crete on an orientalising vase with griffins from Arkades 2
and finally on Etruscan bucchero ware 3 . Another interesting type of bucchero
vase is supported by female figures with curled wings and bearing ropes over
their heads similar to those on the Luristan votive plaques from Surkh Dum,
another instance of Iranian influence in Etruria, in this case continuing as
late as the seventh-sixth century B.C. 4

When did this influence begin ? There are in fact arguments for a conclusion
that contact with the East had occurred many centuries earlier. I have already
suggested that connections existed between the Talish region and the early
bronze work of Populonia and much work remains to be done on this subject.
Earlier still we have the Iranian form of the lugged adze turning up on the
coast of Etruria (a form which we know was actually being cast in Troy)
and I have discussed other connections between Italy and the Eastern Mediter-
ranean dating from about the end of the twelfth century in another article 5 .
Some scholars would be prepared to see here indications of Asiatic-Italian
contract attributable to the Sea raiders, with their Asiatic cut-and-thrust
swords, amongst whom we can number the earliest Etruscan invaders. If
these arguments are accepted, it would follow that these first invaders, who
may well have originated as far away as Eastern Anatolia and Transcaucasia,
were followed up by settlers and metalsmiths from the Urartu-Azerbaijan
region who kept in touch with their original homeland and naturally stimulated
trade between the two widely separated areas.

Thus in the eighth century, when Vannic influence was paramount in
N. Syria, began the export of her products to Greece and to Etruria, and in
Etruria to communities which had been established there at least one or two
centuries earlier. Greece was thus not an intermediary for this trade at first; it
is in the next century, the seventh, usually called the Orientalising period in
Etruria, where the Greek trade provides the additional impetus to this traffic.
We can therefore regard the seventh century B.C. in Italy not as the beginning

1 D.P.M., VII, 37, fig. 39. 5 Sce K R Maxwell-Hyslop, Bronze lugged axe and

2 Matton, La Crkte Antique, pi. XXVII, 71. aa\e blades from Asia in Iraq, XV, Pt. 1, Fig. 3, p. 79,
8 Giglioli, UArte Etrusca, 1935, Tav. XLIII, 6. and Notes on some Bronzes from Populonia, in P.P.S.,
4 Giglioli, op. cit. t Tav. XLII, 6. forthcoming.

163 K. R. MAXWELL-HYSLOP

of the " Orientalising period " but actually the culminating point of a process
which had been going on for a much longer time.

The foregoing conclusions which are based on purely archaeological evidence,
form a link with Sir Gavin de Beer's view of the origin of the Etruscans founded
on important anthropological evidence which, as he points out, has in the
past been largely ignored 1 . The Armenoid type, of which we can find so
many examples in Early Etruscan Art, is to be found at home in Urartu and
in the areas controlled by her in North Syria, where presumably there must
have been a certain number of Urartian settlers. The type is much in evidence
both in Luristan and again at Karatepe, the capital of the Danunim. It is of
course well known on Egyptian reliefs of the sea raiders and suggests that
people from Transcaucasia and Armenia formed an important element of the
raiders' strength. H. R. Hall considered the Shardana to have come from the
Caucasus and one cannot avoid the tempting conclusion that as Sir Gavin de
Beer suggests, the Etruscans must likewise have come along the Black Sea from
Eastern Asia Minor and that the two historically known waves of raiders may
well have been succeeded by further movements from the same area. This
might explain the curious similarity between the group of statuettes usually
classed with Luristan bronzes but actually found north of Luristan in the
Kirmanshah area, and some of the Sardinian statuettes 2 .

Finally, the Black Sea route linking Susa-Luris tan-Azerbaijan-Urartu with
Etruria leads one to consider the position of Samos, which, presumably
situated on this route and profiting from the traffic, played an important part.
As well as producing the ivory head of a bearded man which can be compared
with three similar examples from the Barberini tomb 3 , it has also yielded a
bronze spouted vase of Luristan type, and typical of Tepe Sialk, Cemetery B
(PL XXXIV, 4) 4 . Jantzen has shown also that Samos was an important centre
for the production of bronze griffin protomes, and I would suggest that his
earlier series must have been made by Asiatic craftsmen, and that the later
examples should be regarded as the products of locally trained smiths, who,
while first copying the earlier Urartian models, eventually produced the magni-
ficent cast examples which became typical of early Greek workmanship.

But now let us return to the route from Van to the West via N. Syria and
Al Mina and the Mediterranean, first suggested by Sidney Smith and referred
to at the beginning of this article. The part played by Crete needs no further
elaboration; it has been admirably discussed by Kunze and others.

1 Sur les origines des Etrusques, in Revue des Arts, 4 Buschor, Eine Euristan-Kanne auf Samos in Vorschung
No. 3, 1955. und Forschritte, 1 May, 1932, Nr. 13, Abb. 2. I am

2 Survey of Persian Art, IV, pi. 73. Their relation indebted to the author for permission to publish this
to the terracotta warriors from Ajia Irini in Cyprus photograph. The bronze spiked axe-head of Luristan
is a problem which should be studied. type found in Crete is another instance of trade

3 Curtis, op. at., V, pi. 10, 10-12. between Iran and the West, see Bossert, Gescbisbte des

Kungstgewerbes, III, 389.

URARTIAN BRONZES IN ETRUSCAN TOMBS 1 64

But the position of Cyprus has hitherto been ambiguous and although
Gjerstad has pointed out some undoubted Cypriote-Etrurian links, there is
much work to be done on this subject 1 . A few important points may be
briefly noted here. Firstly we have in Cyprus examples of the bronze winged
sirens, but with a bull's, not a human head, of a type which can be found
among Urartian bronzes at Altin Tepe and Karmirblau, and also in Samos 2 .
In Etruria they occur on a bronze tripod of undoubted Urartian type from
Cerveteri 3 which can be put into the same class as the other imported Urartian
bronzes already discussed.

Another interesting link can be discerned in the numerous bronze fluted
bowls found in the Regolini-Galassi (PL XXXIII, 2, 3), Bernardini and Bar-
berini tombs, which also occur at Vetulonia in the Second Circle of Le Pellicie,
and the Tomba del Duce 4 . These are all distinguished by their flat base with
raised ring and differ from the majority of Asiatic fluted bowls where an
omphalos base is more common. The flared rim, however, can be compared
with the bronze bowl from Ashur dated by its inscription to 805 B.C. 5 but
the best Asiatic prototype for these bowls is found at T. Halaf where a stone
example has the same flutings and raised ring base 6 . Cyprus again forms the
link between the mainland and Etruria as a similar bronze bowl with flutings
and base ring was found at Idalion in the Sanctuary and from a level with other
cult offerings dated to Cypro-Archaic IP. In this connection the remarkable
bowl from Capena with rampant winged lions executed in an undoubted
Urartian style which also shows the ring base must be mentioned 8 . Finally
it remains to mention the bronze bowl with lotus handles found inside the
Bernardini cauldron whose origin has been traced to Cyprus. Many examples
are found there 9 , the earliest dating from Cypro-Geometric II period, i.e.,
c. 950-800 B.C. (Gjerstad's dating), but they continued in use for many years
and Gjerstad thinks they are all of Cypriote manufacture. 10 But Urartian
influence is again noticeable in the shape of the bulls' heads on the handles.

There is much to be said about contact between Cyprus and Etruria after the
Urartian trade had ceased, but it falls outside the scope of this article. It is
the important intermediate position of Cyprus in this trade that I have tried
to stress when discussing the two main trade routes along which the Vannic
objects found in the Etruscan tombs must have travelled.

1 Gjerstad, Swedish Cyprus Expedition, IV, 339 ff. 7 S.C.E., II, pi. CLXXX, Type 6. Gjerstad begins

2 Gjerstad, ibid., II, pi. CLXXIX, 290. From his Cypro-Archaic II period c. 600 B.C., but see
Idalion. Barnett and Watson in Iraq, XIV, Pt. 2, B.A.S.O.R., 138, 37, where Van Beek suggests an
p. 137, fig. 8. Barnett and Gokce in A.S., III, earlier date, c. 750 B.C., for the beginning of Cypro-
pl. XIV. Jantzen, op. cit., Tav. 60. Archaic II.

8 Giglioli, op. cit., Taf. XXII, 3. • Giglioli, op. cit., pi. ix, 2.

4 Curtis, op. cit., Ill, pi. 47; V, pis. 42, 43. 9 S.C.E., IV, 407.

Maclvcr, Villanovans and Early Etruscans, pis. 22 and 10 These lotus-bud handles must originate in

2 4- Phoenicia or Syria; see Jacobstal, Greek Pins, 47, 49

6 Andrae, Das wiedererstandene Assur, Taf. 63, c. and fig. 211 which shows the handle of an ivory

e Oppenheim, Tell Halaf (English edition), pi. bowl from Nimrud.
XLIX, A.5.

165 K. R. MAXWELL-HYSLOP

In conclusion certain aspects of the chronological problems must be
mentioned. The tombs where the metalwork we have identified as Urartian
has been found are all at present dated in the early part of the seventh century,
c. 675-650 B.C. I do not propose to discuss the reasons for this view, which
have been argued in extenso by Pallottino, Byvank, Pareti and many others. But
a few remarks concerning the chronological conclusions that can be drawn
from the Urartian bronzes may not be amiss. The stylistic connections we
have discussed above, between the Barberini base and the Halaf, Carchemish
and Ivriz reliefs belong to the ninth-eighth centuries ; and we have very little
evidence for the activities of Vannic metalsmiths in the seventh century
outside their homeland of Armenia and Transcaucasia 1 . Urartian control of
N. Syria was broken by Tiglath-pileser III in 742 B.C. and the Urartian objects
must have been taken to Italy by metalsmiths who were then in a position to
train local craftsmen to copy their goods in the same way as the local Etrurian
potters of Blakeway's Class C copied the earlier Greek pots which were either
made by Greek workmen in Etruria or were definite imports from Greece.
Blakeway's divisions of the Greek pottery in Etruria into four distinct classes
is an admirable model of what should be done for the bronzes when we have
further technical evidence at our disposal 2 . So far we can only suggest a
tentative distinction between bronzes undoubtedly made by foreign craftsmen
and local copies, and suggest that the Urartian bronzes we have identified
must have been brought by their makers to Italy from the N. Syrian region of
the Urartian empire either before or immediately after, the trade route from
Van to the west was blocked by the Assyrians. And no great period of
time can have separated the final reduction of Urartian power in N. Syria in
742 B.C. when the inland trade ceased, and the arrival of the smiths. It is
true that the dynastic line of Urartian kings continued after the Assyrian
conquests, but after Sargon's Armenian campaign in 714 b.c. it would seem
that the kingdom was then in decline, crippled by the Cimmerian invasions,
and we can hardly attribute any extensive Urartian trade to that period. In
the seventh century it is the Iranian rather than the Urartian influence which
can be detected in Etruria, and it is at the same time that Phoenician and Greek
products begin to flood the Etruscan market.

From these conclusions two controversial suggestions arise. First, the
Etruscans must already have arrived in Etruria by the tenth-ninth centuries B.C.
at the latest; secondly, the earliest Greek Geometric pottery, if Blakeway's
early dates can now be accepted, must have been imported into Etruria by
the middle of the ninth century and .Greek merchants were therefore supplying

1 See Barnett in Iraq, XII, Pt. i, p. 37, where he and Watson, Russian excavations in Armenia, Iraq,
dates the Toprak Kale bronzes to the end of the eighth XIV, Pt. 2, pp. 1 3 2-147, *•

century B.C. with exception of the shields. For 2 Blakeway, Greek commerce with the West, 800-600

Vannic metalwork of the seventh century see Barnett B.C., Annual of the British School at Athens, XXXIII,

and " Demaratus ", Journal of Roman Studies, 25, 1935.

URARTIAN BRONZES IN ETRUSCAN TOMBS 1 66

an established Etruscan market. It is generally assumed that the chieftains
whose elaborate equipment 1 is known to us from the unpublished inhumation
graves in the Villa Giulia Museum with crested helmets, round shields and
other weapons, horsebits and a mass of bronze work, were Etruscans, and it
is in tombs containing similar bronze work at Veii, Bisenzio and Tarquinia
(naming only the most important sites) that we find the Greek imports. The
importance of the Al Mina-Cyprus-Crete-Etruria route cannot be over-
estimated. Greek pottery appears at Al Mina by 800 B.C. and possibly earlier.
The sudden appearance of Vannic bronzes such as griffin protomes, siren
figures, etc., in Greece and the Aegean can also perhaps be explained both
by the departure of smiths from N. Syria and the efficient operation of the
trade route, probably by Greek sailors. There is no sign of Phoenician
participation here. That comes later in the seventh century when the overland
trade in bronzes ceased and ivories and silver bowls from coastal workshops
find their way in increasing numbers to Etruria. If the Bernardini, Barberini
and Regolini Galassi tombs are to be dated to the early seventh century, then
I would suggest that the Urartian bronzes belong to the eighth century and
must have been several generations old when placed in the tombs. I have
attempted to show in another paper that the early chamber tombs and the
fossa graves at Populonia can be dated to the tenth century; they contain
material of Pallottino's period Archaic I dated by same authorities to the tenth-
ninth centuries B.C. 2 . It also seems possible that some of the Populonia fossa
graves and early chamber tombs should be attributed to early Etruscan settlers.
If this earlier dating at Populonia is correct some of the Olmo Bello and
Capodimonte tombs, and the Veii tombs No. 779 and 785 all containing Greek
pottery should perhaps be dated in the ninth instead of the eighth centuries
and a corresponding heightening of chronology on other sites can be attempted.
The Warrior's tomb at Tarquinia, the Tomba del Duce at Vetulonia, the
Bernardini and Barberini tombs, and finally the Regolini Galassi tomb could
therefore be dated perhaps fifty or seventy-five years earlier than they now are,
i.e., the Warrior's tomb should be dated well back into the eighth century, (a
suggestion already made by Clark Hopkins) and the Bernardini and Barberini
tombs towards the end of the eighth century, say c. 725 B.C. But until there
is complete agreement on the dating of Greek protogeometric and geometric
pottery and further excavation on Etruscan coastal sites is undertaken, the
chronological problems in Italy from the tenth to the seventh centuries will still
remain unsolved.

1 This equipment is shown on the " Hunters " fact the Boghazkdy relief may not belong to the same

shield from Mount Ida in Crete and on the Bronze period, i.e., eighth century B.C.; the Transcaucasian

quiver and belt from Knossos, Kunze, op. d/. t 1950, analogies to the axehead certainly reinforce this

Taf. 10-19, and Lorimer, Homer and the Monuments, pi. suggestion.

XI, 2, 3. The close resemblance between the helmet, 2 Notes on some bronzes from Populonia in P.P.S.,

belt and short tunic of the " warrior " relief on the forthcoming. Professor Hencken's views on the

Boghazkoy gate with that worn by the soldiers on date of Pallottino's period Archaic I in Italy were

the Cretan bronzes raises the question whether in expressed to me in a letter dated May, 1956.

167 K. R. MAXWELL-HYSLOP

Addendum

Since writing this article I have visited the Museum at Olympia and E.
Kunze, Bericht tirber die Ausgrabungen in Olympia, Berlin, 1956, has appeared
giving a photograph (Abb 37-8) of the remarkable bronze plaque with a bearded
Asiatic figure executed in repousee and in a North Syrian-S.E. Anatolian
style. There is little that can be added to Kunze's discussion of this plaque,
whose style he compares to the King's statue at Malatya, to figures on the reliefs
from Sak§e Gozii, Zenjirli and to the rock relief at Ivriz. Kunze also lists
the siren figures (and other bronzes) from Olympia which he considers un-
doubted imports (p. 81, note 11). These siren figures are closely comparable
to the Vetulonia examples and can be contrasted with others from Olympia
which are obviously Greek copies of Urartian originals. The occurrence at
Olympia of so many imported Urartian bronzes, including the plaque mentioned
above, is extremely important evidence which reinforces the suggestions made
in this article and also serves to emphasise that the scale of Urartian trade to the
West must have been much larger than has hitherto been suspected.